Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 27 Nov 2006.
Will these all be the AM2 chips? Or will they maybe make some old 939s too?
All socket AM2
Eh? Not only will it be a little bit late to the party, the other partygoers will be claiming their pensions
argh, hurry up with the stinking quad core already!!!
Seconded, though I'm glad they are doing something
True, BUT, nothing to combat the C2D, this certainly is not at any stretch of the imagination.
Will these be any faster than the current chips available? Or just cooler running?
This is ludacris, chips seperated by 100 mhz that is. Intel is applying more logic to their line up by seperating the up and coming core2duo's by 300 mhz. AMD is all over the place with this 4200 -5200 - fx crap. They need to hire me or Mr. T to put the smack down on their marketing department....
Well, there was a hint at a 5400+. With a die shrink the first step is often not a whole lot of faster chips but a few at current speeds. The next step though...
is there any reason behind amd's desktop naming logic any more?. . they should changed over the way mobile processors are categorized. so you would have a letter for either single or dual core, another for the level of cache the the actual mhz as numbers..
so for example.
S being single core, D being dual. A being512k cahce, B is 1mb. the numbers obviously are self explanatory. 24 is 2400mhz.
will these new 65nm's be any quicker than the equivalent 90nm or just just run cooler?
Just run cooler.
so would be little point me going amd65 vs conroe then... bah... i want amd to come back
When I first read the headline I thought: "Finally an ADM answer to C2D!" Then I read the story behind it and was left kinda frustrated.
Yea, it's nice to have them run cooler and maybe you'll have a bit more room to overclock them now (even though only time will tell if they o/c as well as C2D) but what is the point in throwing another 'last generation' chip on the market that obviously wants next-generation (C2D-equal) chips?
I plan buying a new PC in January and I hoped AMD would have something nice for me... don't think so at the moment. R600 maybe...
So... they're bringing back the X2 4000, but it'll be clocked at 2.1GHz with 512KB L2 Cache per core? Whereas the original was 2.0GHz with 1MB L2 Cache per core - confused? I am.
I still would want the 1mb L2 for each core, call me fussy and illogical but I want it. At least they will be more efficient running and probably have a little more overclocking potental but they dont have anything out to top intel.
AMD have lost the plot somewhat I think.
Separate names with a comma.